Chapter II: Part 2

2. There is no element of fire, which must be held with this opinion here delivered; for if wee suppose a world in the Moone, then it will follow, that the spheare of fire, either is not there where 'tis usually placed in the concavity of his Orbe, or else that there is no such thing at all, which is most probable, since there are not any such solid Orbs, that by their swift motion might heare and enkindle the adjoyning aire, which is imagined to be the reason of that element. Concerning this see _Cardan_, _Iohannes Pena_ that learned _Frenchman_, the noble _Tycho_, with divers others who have purposely handled this proposition.

3. I might adde a third, _viz._ that there is no Musicke of the spheares, for if they be not solid, how can their motion cause any such sound as is conceived? I doe the rather medle with this, because _Plutarch_ speaks as if a man might very conveniently heare that harmony, if he were an inhabitant in the Moone. But I guesse that hee said this out of incogitancy, and did not well consider those necessary consequences which depended upon his opinion. However the world would have no great losse in being deprived of this Musicke, unlesse at some times we had the priviledge to heare it: Then indeede _Philo_ the Jew[1] thinkes it would save us the charges of diet, and we might live at an easie rate by feeding at the eare onely, and receiving no other nourishment; and for this very reason (saies he) was _Moses_ enabled to tarry forty daies and forty nights in the Mount without eating any thing, because he there heard the melody of the Heavens,--_Risum teneatis_. I know this Musicke hath had great patrons both sacred and prophane authours, such as _Ambrose_, _Bede_, _Boetius_, _Anselme_, _Plato_, _Cicero_ and others, but because it is not now, I thinke affirmed by any, I shall not therefore bestow either paines or time in arguing against it.

[Sidenote 1: _De somniis._]

It may suffice that I have onely named these three last, and for the two more necessary, have referred the Reader to others for satisfaction. I shall in the next place proceede to the nature of the Moones body, to know whether that be capable of any such conditions, as may make it possible to be inhabited, and what those qualities are wherein it more neerely agrees with our earth.

Proposition 4.

_That the Moone is a solid, compacted, opacous body._

I shall not need to stand long in the proofe of this proposition, since it is a truth already agreed on by the generall consent of the most and the best Philosophers.

1. It is solid in opposition to fluid, as is the ayre, for how otherwise could it beare backe the light which it receives from the Sunne?

But here it may be questioned, whether or no the Moone bestow her light upon us by the reflection of the Sunne-beames from the superficies of her body, or else by her owne illumination. Some there are who affirme this latter part. So _Averroes_, _Caelius Rhodiginus_, _Iulius Caesar_, _&c._ and their reason is because this light is discerned in many places,[1] whereas those bodies which give light by reflexion can there onely be perceived where the angle of reflexion is equall to the angle of incidence, and this is onely in one place, as in a looking-glasse those beames which are reflected from it cannot bee perceived in every place where you may see the glasse, but onely there where your eye is placed on the same line whereon the beames are reflected.

[Sidenote 1: _De coelo. l. 2. com. 49._
_Ant. lection. l. 20. c. 4._
_De phaenom. lunae. c. 11._]

But to this I answere, that the argument will not hold of such bodies, whose superficies is full of unequall parts and gibbosities as the Moone is. Wherefore it is as well the more probable as the more common opinion, that her light proceedes from both these causes, from reflexion and illumination; nor doth it herein differ from our earth, since that also hath some light by illumination: for how otherwise would the parts about us in a Sunne-shine day appeare so bright, when as all the rayes of reflexion cannot enter into our eye?

2. It is compact, and not a spungie and porous substance.[1] But this is denied by _Diogenes_, _Vitellio_, and _Reinoldus_, and some others, who held the Moone to bee of the same kind of nature as a Pumice-stone, and this, say they, is the reason why in the Suns eclipses there appeares within her a duskish ruddy colour, because the Sunne-beames being refracted in passing through the pores of her body, must necessarily be represented under such a colour.

[Sidenote 1: _Plut. de pla. phil. l. 2. c. 13._
_Opt. l. 4._
_Com. Purbac. Theo. p. 164._]

But I reply, if this be the cause of her rednesse; then why doth she not appeare under the same forme when she is about a sextile aspect, and the darkned part of her body is discernable? for then also doe the same rayes passe through her, and therefore in all likelihood should produce the same effect, and notwithstanding those beames are then diverted from us, that they cannot enter into our eyes by a streight line, yet must the colour still remaine visible in her body,[1] and besides according to this opinion, the spots would not alwaies be the same, but divers, as the various distance of the Sunne requires. Againe, if the Sunne-beames did passe through her, why then hath she not a taile as the Comets? why doth she appeare in such an exact round? and not rather attended with a long flame, since it is meerely this penetration of the Sunne beames that is usually attributed to be the cause of beards in blazing starres.

[Sidenote 1: _Scaliger exercit. 80. Sec. 13._]

3. It is opacous, not transparent or diaphanous like Chrystall or glasse,[1] as _Empedocles_ thought, who held the Moone to bee a globe of pure congealed aire, like haile inclosed in a spheare of fire, for then.

[Sidenote 1: _Plut. de fa. lunae._]

1. Why does shee not alwaies appeare in the full? since the light is dispersed through all her body?

2. How can the interposition of her body so darken the Sun, or cause such great eclipses as have turned day into night,[1] that have discovered the stars, and frighted the birds with such a sudden darknesse, that they fell downe upon the earth, as it is related in divers Histories? And therefore _Herodotus_ telling of an Eclipse which fell in _Xerxes_ time, describes it thus:[2] +ho helios eklipon ten ek tou ouranou hedren aphanes en+. The Sunne leaving his wonted seate in the heavens, vanished away: all which argues such a great darknesse, as could not have beene, if her body had beene perspicuous. Yet some there are who interpret all these relations to bee hyperbolicall expressions, and the noble _Tycho_ thinkes it naturally impossible, that any eclipse should cause such darknesse, because the body of the Moone can never totally cover the Sunne; however, in this he is singular, all other Astronomers (if I may believe _Keplar_) being on the contrary opinion, by reason the Diameter of the Moone does for the most part appeare bigger to us then the Diameter of the Sunne.

[Sidenote 1: _Thucid._
_Livii._
_Plut. de fa. Lunae._]

[Sidenote 2: _Herodot. l. 7 c. 37._]

But here _Julius Caesar_[1] once more, puts in to hinder our passage. The Moone (saith he) is not altogether opacous, because 'tis still of the same nature with the Heavens, which are incapable of totall opacity: and his reason is, because perspicuity is an inseparable accident of those purer bodies, and this hee thinkes must necessarily bee granted, for hee stops there, and proves no further; but to this I shall deferre an answere, till hee hath made up his argument.

[Sidenote 1: _De phaenom. Lunae. c. 11._]

We may frequently see, that her body does so eclipse the Sunne, as our earth doth the Moone; since then the like interposition of them both, doth produce the like effect, they must necessarily be of the like natures, that is a like opacous, which is the thing to be shewed; and this was the reason (as the Interpreters guesse) why _Aristotle_ affirmed the Moone to be of the earths nature,[1] because of their agreement in opacity, whereas all the other elements save that, are in some measure perspicuous.

[Sidenote 1: _In lib. de animalib._]

But the greatest difference which may seeme to make our earth altogether unlike the Moone, is, because the one is a bright body, and hath light of its owne, and the other a grosse dark body which cannot shine at all. 'Tis requisite therefore, that in the next place I cleare this doubt, and shew that the Moone hath no more light of her owne than our earth.

Proposition 5.

_That the Moone hath not any light of her owne._

Twas the fancy of some of the Jewes, and more especially of _Rabbi Simeon_, that the Moone was nothing else but a contracted Sunne,[1] and that both those planets at their first creation were equall both in light and quantity, for because God did then call them both great lights, therefore they inferred, that they must be both equall in bignesse. But a while after (as the tradition goes) the ambitious Moone put up her complaint to God against the Sunne, shewing, that it was not fit there should be two such great lights in the heavens, a Monarchy would best become the place of order and harmony. Upon this God commanded her to contract her selfe into a narrower compasse, but she being much discontented hereat, replies, What! because I have spoken that which is reason and equity, must I therefore be diminished? This sentence could not chuse but much trouble her; and for this reason was shee in much distresse and griefe for a long space, but that her sorrow might be some way pacified, God bid her be of good cheere, because her priviledges and charet should be greater then the Suns, he should appeare in the day timeonely, shee both in the day and night, but her melancholy being not satisfied with this, shee replyed againe, that that alas was no benefit, for in the day-time she should be either not seene, or not noted. Wherefore, God to comfort her up, promised, that his people the Israelites should celebrate all their feasts and holy daies by a computation of her moneths, but this being not able to content her, shee has looked very melancholy ever since; however shee hath still reserved much light of her owne.

[Sidenote 1: _Tostatus in 1. Gen._
_Hieron. de 5. Hide._
_Hebraeonia l. 2. c. 4._]

Others there were, that did thinke the Moone to be a round globe, the one halfe of whole body was of a bright substance, the other halfe being darke, and the divers conversions of those sides towards our eyes, caused the variety of her appearances: of this opinion was _Berosus_, as he is cited by _Vitruvius_,[1] and St. _Austin_[2] thought it was probable enough, but this fancy is almost equally absurd with the former, and both of them sound rather like fables, then philosophicall truths. You may commonly see how this latter does contradict frequent and easie experience, for 'tis observed, that that spot which is perceived about her middle, when she is in the increase, may be discern'd in the same place when she is in the ful: whence it must follow, that the same part which was before darkened, is after inlightened, and that the one part is not alwaies darke, and the other light of it selfe, but enough of this, I would be loth to make an enemy, that I may afterwards overcome him, or bestow time in proving that which is already granted. I suppose now, that neither of them hath any patrons, and therefore need no confutation.

[Sidenote 1: _Lib. 9. Architecturae._]

[Sidenote 2: _in enarrat. Psalmorum._]

'Tis agreed upon by all sides, that this Planet receives most of her light from the Sunne, but the chiefe controversie is, whether or no she hath any of her owne? The greater multitude affirme this. _Cardan_ amongst the rest, is very confident of it, and he thinkes that if any of us were in the Moone at the time of her greatest eclipse,[1]

_Lunam aspiceremus non secus ac innumeris cereis splendidissimis
accensis, atque in eas oculis defixis caecutiremus_;

"wee should perceive so great a brightnesse of her owne, that would blind us with the meere sight," and when shee is enlightened by the Sunne, then no eagles eye if there were any there, is able to looke upon her. This _Cardan_ saies, and hee doth but say it without bringing any proofe for its confirmation. However, I will set downe the arguments that are usually urged for this opinion, and they are taken either from Scripture or reason; from Scripture is urged that place, _1 Cor. 15._ where it is said, _There is one glory of the Sunne, and another glory of the Moone_. _Vlysses Albergettus_ urges, that in _Math. 24. 22._ +he selene ou dosei to phengos autes+, _The Moone shall not give her light_: therefore (saies he) she hath some of her owne.

[Sidenote 1: _De Subtil. lib. 3._]

But to these wee may easily answer that the glory and light there spoken of, may be said to be hers, though it be derived, as you may see in many other instances.

The arguments from reason are taken either

1. From that light which is discerned in her, when there is a totall eclipse of her owne body, or of the Sunne.

2. For the light which is discerned in the darker part of her body, when she is but a little distant from the Sunne.

1. For when there are any totall eclipses, there appeares in her body a great rednesse, and many times light enough to cause a remarkeable shade, as common experience doth sufficiently manifest: but this cannot come from the Sunne, since at such times either the earth, or her owne body shades her from the Sun-beames, therefore it must proceede from her owne light.

2. Two or three daies after the new Moone, wee may perceive light in her whole body, whereas the rayes of the Sun reflect but upon a small part of that which is visible, therefore 'tis likely that there is some light of her owne.

In answering to these objections, I shall first shew, that this light cannot be her owne, and then declare that which is the true reason of it.

That it is not her own, appeares

1. From the variety of it at divers times; for 'tis commonly observed, that sometimes 'tis of a brighter, sometimes of a darker appearance, now redder, and at another time of a more duskish colour. The observation of this variety in divers eclipses, you may see set downe by _Keplar_[1] and many others, but now this could not be if that light were her owne, that being constantly the same, and without any reason of such an alteration: So that thus I may argue.

[Sidenote 1: _Opt. Astron. c. 7. num. 3._]

If there were any light proper to the Moone, then would that Planet appeare brightest when she is eclipied in her Perige, being neerest to the earth, and so consequently more obscure and duskish when she is in her Apoge or farthest from it; the reason is, because the neerer any enlightened body comes to the sight, by so much the more strong are the species and the better perceived. This sequell is granted by some of our adversaries, and they are the very words of noble _Tycho_,[1]

_Si luna genuino gauderet lumine, utique cum in umbra terrae esset, illud non amitteret, sed eo evidentius exereret, omne enim lumen in tenebris, plus splendet cum alio majore fulgore non praepeditur._

If the Moone had any light of her owne, then would she not lose it in the earths shadow, but rather shine more clearely, since every light appeares greater in the darke, when it is not hindered by a more perspicuous brightnesse.

[Sidenote 1: _De nova stella lib. 1. c. 10._]

But now the event falls out cleane contrary, (as observation doth manifest, and our opposites themselves doe grant)[1] the Moone appearing with a more reddish and cleare light when she is eclipsed being in her Apoge or farthest distance, and a more blackish yron colour when she is in her Perige or neerest to us, therefore shee hath not any light of her owne. Nor may we thinke that the earths shadow can cloud the proper light of the Moone from appearing, or take away any thing from her inherent brightnesse, for this were to thinke a shadow to be a body, an opinion altogether mis-becomming a Philosopher, as _Tycho_ grants in the fore-cited place,

_Nec umbra terrae corporeum quid est, aut densa aliqua substantia,
aut lunae lumen obtenebrare possit, atque id visui nostro praeripere,
sed est quaedam privatio luminis solaris, ob interpositum opacum
corpus terrae._

Nor is the earths shadow any corporall thing, or thicke substance, that it can cloud the Moones brightnesse, or take it away from our sight, but it is a meere privation of the Suns light, by reason of the interposition of the earths opacous body.

[Sidenote 1: Reinhold _comment. in Purb. Theor. pag. 164._]

2. If shee had any light of her owne then that would in it selfe be, either such a ruddy brightnesse as appeares in the eclipses, or else such a leaden duskish light as wee see in the darker parts of her body, when shee is a little past the conjunction. (That it must be one of these may follow from the opposite arguments) but it is neither of these, therefore she hath none of her owne.

1. 'Tis not such a ruddy light as appeares in eclipses, for then why can wee not see the like rednesse, when wee may discerne the obscurer parts of the Moone?

You will say, perhaps, that then the neerenesse of that greater light, takes away that appearance.

I reply, this cannot be, for then why does Mars shine with his wonted rednesse, when he is neere the Moone? or why cannot her greater brightnesse make him appeare white as the other Planets? nor can there be any reason given why that greater light should represent her body under a false colour.

2. 'Tis not such a duskish leaden light, as we see in the darker part of her body, when shee is about a sextile Aspect distant from the Sunne, for then why does shee appeare red in the eclipses, since the more shade cannot choose such variety, for 'tis the nature of darknesse by its opposition, rather to make things appeare of a more white and cleare brightnesse then they are in themselves, or if it be the shade, yet those parts of the Moone are then in the shade of her body, and therefore in reason should have the like rednesse. Since then neither of these lights are hers, it followes that she hath none of her owne. Nor is this a singular opinion, but it hath had many learned patrons, such was _Macrobius_,[1] who being for this quoted of _Rhodiginus_, he calls him _vir reconditissimae scientiae_,[2] a man who knew more than ordinary Philosophers, thus commending the opinion in the credit of the Authour. To him assents the Venerable _Bede_, upon whom the glosse hath this comparison.[3] As the Looking-glasse represents not any image within it selfe, unlesse it receive some from without; so the Moone hath not any light, but what is bestowed by the Sun. To these agreed _Albertus Magnus_, _Scaliger_, _Maeslin_, and more especially _Mulapertius_,[4] whose words are more pat to the purpose then others, and therefore I shall set them downe as you may finde them in his Preface to his Treatise concerning the _Austriaca sydera_;

_Luna, Venus, & Mercurius, terrestris & humidae sunt substantiae
ideoque de suo non lucere, sicut nec terra._

The Moone, _Venus_, and _Mercurie_ (saith he) are of an earthly and moyst substance, and therefore have no more light of their owne, then the earth hath. Nay, some there are who thinke that all the other Starres doe receive that light, whereby they appeare visible to us from the Sunne, so _Ptolomie_, _Isidore Hispalensis_, _Albertus Magnus_ and _Bede_, much more then must the Moone shine with a borrowed light.[5]

[Sidenote 1: _Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 20._]

[Sidenote 2: _Lect. antiq. l. 1. c. 15._]

[Sidenote 3: _In lib. de natur. rerum._]

[Sidenote 4: _De 4r. Coaevis. Q. 4ª. Art. 21._
_Exercit. 62._
_1. Epitome. Astron. lib. 4. p. 2._]

[Sidenote 5: _Originum l. 3. c. 60._
_De Coelo. l. 2._
_De ratione tempor. c. 4._]

But enough of this. I have now sufficiently shewed what at the first I promised, that this light is not proper to the Moone. It remaines in the next place, that I tell you the true reason of it. And here, I thinke 'tis probable that the light which appeares in the Moone at the eclipses is nothing else but the second species of the Sunnes rayes which passe through the shadow unto her body: and from a mixture of this second light with the shadow, arises that rednesse which at such times appeares unto us. I may call it _Lumen crepusculum_, the _Aurora_ of the Moone, or such a kinde of blushing light, that the Sunne causes when he is neere his rising, when he bestowes some small light upon the thicker vapours. Thus wee see commonly the Sunne being in the Horizon, and the reflexion growing weake, how his beames make the waters appeare very red.

The Moabites in _Iehorams_ time when they rose early in the morning, and beheld the waters a farre off, mistooke them for blood.[1]

_Et causa hujus est, quia radius solaris in aurora contrahit quandam
rubedinem, propter vapores combustos manentes circa superficiem
terrae, per quos radii transeunt, & ideo cum repercutiantur in aqua
ad oculos nostros, trahunt secum eundem ruborem, & faciunt apparere
locum aquarum, in quo est repercussio esse rubrum_,

saith _Tostatus_.[2] The reason is, because of his rayes, which being in the lower vapours, those doe convey an imperfect mixed light upon the waters. Thus the Moone being in the earths shadow, and the Sunne beames which are round about it, not being able to come directly unto her body, yet some second raies there are, which passing through the shadow, make her appeare in that ruddy colour: So that she must appeare brightest, when shee is eclipsed, being in her Apoge, of greatest distance from us, because then the cone of the earths shadow is lesse, and the refraction is made through a narrower medium. So on the contrary, she must be represented under a more darke and obscure forme when she is eclipsed, being in her Perige, or neerest to the earth, because then she is involved in a greater shadow, or bigger part of the cone, and so the refraction passing through a greater medium, the light must needes be weaker which doth proceed from it. If you aske now what the reason may be of that light which we discerne in the darker part of the new Moone: I answer, 'tis reflected from our earth which returnes as great a brightnesse to that Planet, as it receives from it. This I shall have occasion to prove afterward.

[Sidenote 1: 2 King. 3. 22.]

[Sidenote 2: _2ª. Quaest. in hoc cap._]

I have now done with these propositions which were set downe to cleare the passage, and confirme the suppositions implied in the opinion, I shall in the next place proceed to a more direct treating of the chiefe matter in hand.

Proposition 6.

_That there is a world in the Moone, hath beene the direct opinion of
many ancient, with some moderne Mathematicians, and may probably be
deduced from the tenents of others._

Since this opinion may be suspected of singularity, I shall therefore first confirme it by sufficient authority of divers authours, both ancient and moderne, that so I may the better cleare it from the prejudice either of an upstart fancy, or an absolute errour. This is by some attributed to _Orpheus_, one of the most ancient Greeke Poets, who speaking of the Moone, saies thus, +he poll' ourea echei, poll' astea, polla melathra+,[1] That it hath many mountaines and cities, and houses in it. To him assented _Xenophanes_, _Anaxagoras_, _Democritus_, and _Heraclitus_,[2] all who thought it to have firme solid ground, like to our earth,[3] containing in it many large fields, champion grounds, and divers inhabitants, unto these agreed _Pythagoras_, who thought that our earth was but one of the Planets which moved round about the Sunne,[4] (as _Aristotle_ relates it of him) and the _Pythagoreans_ in generall did affirme, that the Moone also was terrestriall, that she was inhabited as this lower world. That those living creatures & plants which are in her, exceed any of the like kind with us in the same proportion, as their daies are longer than ours: _viz._ by 15 times. This _Pythagoras_[5] was esteemed by all, of a most divine wit, as appeares especially by his valuation amongst the _Romans_ who being comanded by the Oracle to erect a statue to the wisest _Grecian_, the Senate determined[6] _Pythagoras_ to be meant, preferring him in their judgements before the divine _Socrates_, whom their Gods pronounc'd the wisest. Some think him a _Iew_ by birth, but most agree that hee was much conversant amongst the learneder sort, & Priests of that Nation, by whom he was informed of many secrets, and perhaps, this opinion, which he vented afterwards in _Greece_, where he was much opposed by _Aristotle_ in some worded disputations, but never confuted by any solid reason.

[Sidenote 1: _Plut. de plac. phil. l. 2. c. 13._]

[Sidenote 2: _Ibid. c. 25._]

[Sidenote 3: _Diog. Laert. l. 2. & l. 9._]

[Sidenote 4: _De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 13._]

[Sidenote 5: _Plut. ibid. cap. 30._]

[Sidenote 6: _Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 34. cap. 6._]

To this opinion of _Pythagoras_ did _Plato_ also assent, when hee considered that there was the like eclipse made by the earth, and this, that it had no light of its owne, that it was so full of spots. And therefore wee may often reade in him and his followers,[1] of an _aetherea terra_, and _lunares populi_, an aethereall earth, and inhabiters in the Moone; but afterwards this was mixed with many ridiculous fancies: for some of them considering the mysteries implied in the number 3. concluded that there must necessarily bee a Trinity of worlds, whereof the first is this of ours, the second in the Moone whose element of water is represented by the spheare of _Mercury_, the aire by _Uenus_, and the fire by the Sunne. And that the whole Universe might the better end in earth as it began, they have contrived it, that _Mars_ shall be a spheare of the fire, _Iupiter_ of aire, _Saturne_ of water; and above all these, the Elysian fields, spacious and pleasant places appointed for the habitation of those unspotted soules, that either never were imprisoned in, or else now have freed themselves from any commerce with the body. _Scaliger_[2] speaking of this _Platonicke_ fancie, _quae in tres trientes mundum quasi assem divisit_, thinks 'tis confutation enough, to say, 'tis _Plato's_. However for the first part of this assertion, it was assented unto by many others, and by reason of the grossnesse and inequality of this planet, 'twas frequently called _quasi terra coelestis_, as being esteemed the sediment and more imperfect part of those purer bodies, you may see this proved by _Plutarch_,[3] in that delightfull work which he properly made for the confirmition of this particular. With him agreed _Alcinous_[4] and _Plotinus_, later Writers. Unto these I might also adde the imperfect testimony of _Mahomet_, whose authority of grant can adde but little credit to this opinion, because hee was an ignorant imposter, but yet consider that originall, from whence hee derived most of his knowledge, and then, perhaps, his witnesse may carry with it some probablity. He is commonly thought by birth to be an Ismaelite, being instructed by the Jewes in the secrets of their Philosophy,[5] and perhaps, learned this from those Rabbies, for in his _Alcaron_, hee talkes much of mountaines, pleasant fields, and cleare rivers in the heavens, but because he was for the maine very unlearned, he was not able to deliver any thing so distinctly as he was informed.[6] The Cardinall _Cusanus_ and _Iornandus Bunus_, held a particular world in every Starre, and therefore one of them defining our earth, he saies, it is

_stella quaedam nobilis, quae lunam & calorem & influentiam habet
aliam, & diversam ab omnibus aliis stellis_;

a "noble starre having a distinct light, heat and influence from all the rest." Unto this _Nichol. Hill_, a country man of ours was inclined, when he said _Astrea terrae natura probabilis est_: "That 'tis probable the earth hath a starry nature."[7]

[Sidenote 1: _Plat. de conviviis._
_Macrob. Somn. Scip. lib. 1. ca. 11._]

[Sidenote 2: _Exercit. 62._]

[Sidenote 3: _De facie Lunae._]

[Sidenote 4: _Instit. ad discip._ Plat. _Cael. Rhodig. l. 1. c. 4._]

[Sidenote 5: _Azoara. 57. & 65._]

[Sidenote 6: _Cusa. de doct. ign. l. 2. cap. 12._]

[Sidenote 7: _Philos. epicur. part. 434._]

But the opinion which I have here delivered was more directly proved by _Maeslin_, _Keplar_, and _Galilaeus_, each of them late writers, and famous men for their singular skill in Astronomy.[1] As for those workes of _Maeslin_ and _Keplar_ wherein they doe more expresly treate of this opinion, I have not yet had the happinesse to see them. However their opinions appeare plaine enough from their owne writings, and the testimony of others concerning them. But _Iulius Caesar_, whom I have above quoted, speaking of their testimony whom I now cite for this opinion,[2] _viz._ _Keplar_ and _Galilaeus_ affirmes that to his knowledge they did but jest in those things which they write concerning this, and as for any such world, he assuredly knowes they never so much as dreamt of it. But I had rather believe their owne words, then his pretended knowledge.

[Sidenote 1: _In Thesibus_
_dissertatio cum Nic. Hill._
_Nuncius Sydereus._]

[Sidenote 2: _De phaenom. lunae. c. 4._]

'Tis true indeed, in many things they doe but trifle, but for the maine scope of those discourses, 'tis as manifest they seriously meant it, as any indifferent Reader may easily discerne; otherwise sure _Campanella_ (a man as well acquainted with his opinion, and perhaps his person as _Caesar_ was) would never have writ an apologie for him. And besides 'tis very likely if it had beene but a jest, _Galilaeus_ would never have suffered so much for it as afterwards he did. But as for the knowledge which hee pretends, you may guesse what it was by his confidence (I say not presumption) in other assertions, and his boldnesse[1] in them may well derogate from his credit in this. For speaking of _Ptolome's_ _Hypothesis_ he pronounces this verdict,

_Impossibile est excentricorum & epicyclorum positio, nec aliquis
est ex Mathematicis adeo stultus qui veram illam existimet._

"The position of _Excentricks_ and _Epicycles_ is altogether
impossible, nor is there any Mathematician such a foole as to
thinke it true."

I should guesse hee could not have knowledge enough to maintaine any other Hypothesis who was so ignorant in Mathematicks, as to deny that any good Authour held this. For I would faine know whether there were never any that thought the Heavens to be solid bodies, and that there were such kindes of motion as is by those feined Orbes supplyed; if so, then _Caesar la Galla_ was much mistaken. I thinke his assertions are equally true, that _Galilaeus_ and _Keplar_ did not hold this, and that there were none which ever held that other.

[Sidenote 1: _Cap. 7._]

But in my following discourse I shall most insist on the observation of _Galilaeus_, the inventour of that famous perspective, whereby we may discerne the heavens hard by us, whereby those things which others have formerly guest at are manifested to the eye, and plainely discovered beyond exception or doubt, of which admirable invention, these latter ages of the world may justly boast, and for this expect to be celebrated by posterity. 'Tis related of _Eudoxus_, that hee wished himselfe burnt with _Phaeton_, so he might stand over the Sunne to contemplate its nature; had hee lived in these daies, he might have enjoyed his wish at an easie rate, and scaling the heavens by this glasse, might plainely have discerned what hee so much desired. _Keplar_ considering those strange discoveries which this perspective had made, could not choose but cry out in a +prosopopeia+ and rapture of admiration.

_O multiscium & quovis sceptro pretiosius perspicillum! an qui te
dextra tenet, ille non dominus constituatur operum Dei?_

And _Johannes Fabricius_[1] an elegant writer, speaking of the same glasse, and for this invention preferring our age before those former times of greater ignorance, saies thus;

_Adeo sumus superiores veteribus, ut quam illi carminis magici
pronunciatu de missam representasse putantur nos non tantum
innocenter demittamus, sed etiam familiari quodam intuitu ejus quasi
conditionem intueamur._

"So much are wee above the ancients, that whereas they were faine by
their magical charms to represent the Moones approach, wee cannot
onely bring her lower with a greater innocence, but may also with a
more familiar view behold her condition."

And because you shall have no occasion to question the truth of those experiments, which I shal afterwards urge from it; I will therefore set downe the testimony of an enemy, and such a witnesse hath alwaies beene accounted prevalent: you may see it in the abovenamed _Caesar la Galla_,[2] whose words are these:

_Mercurium caduceum gestantem, coelestia nunciare, & mortuorum animas
ab inferis revacare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galilaeum vero novum
Iovis interpretem Telescopio caducaeo instructum Sydera aperire, &
veterum Philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra aetas
videt & admiratur._

Wise antiquity fabled _Mercury_ carrying a rodde in his hand to relate newes from Heaven, and call backe the soules of the dead, but it hath beene the happinesse of our industrious age to see and admire _Galilaeus_ the new Embassadour of the Gods furnished with his perspective to unfold the nature of the Starres, and awaken the ghosts of the ancient Philosophers. So worthily and highly did these men esteeme of this excellent invention.

[Sidenote 1: _De macula in sole obser._]

[Sidenote 2: _De phaenom. c. 1._]

Now if you would know what might be done by this glasse, in the sight of such things as were neerer at hand, the same Authour will tell you,[1] when hee sayes, that by it those things which could scarce at all bee discerned by the eye at the distance of a mile and a halfe, might plainely and distinctly bee perceived for 16 Italian miles, and that as they were really in themselves, without any transposition or falsifying at all. So that what the ancient Poets were faine to put in a fable, our more happy age hath found out in a truth, and we may discerne as farre with these eyes which _Galilaeus_ hath bestowed upon us, as _Lynceus_ could with those which the Poets attributed unto him. But if you yet doubt whether all these observations were true, the same Authour may confirme you,[2] when hee saies they were shewed,

_Non uni aut alteri, sed quamplurimis, neque gregariis hominibus,
sed praecipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, necnon Mathematicis &
opticis praeceptis, optime instructis sedula ac diligenti inspectione_.

"Not to one or two, but to very many, and those not ordinary men,
but to those who were well vers'd in Mathematickes and Opticks,
and that not with a meere glance but with a sedulous and diligent
inspection."

And least any scruple might remaine unanswered, or you might thinke the men who beheld all this though they might be skilfull, yet they came with credulous minds, and so were more easie to be deluded. He addes that it was shewed,[3]

_vius qui ad experimenta haec contradicendi animo accesserant_.

"To such as were come with a great deale of prejudice, and an intent
of contradiction."

Thus you may see the certainety of those experiments which were taken by this glasse. I have spoken the more concerning it, because I shall borrow many things in my farther discourse, from those discoveries which were made by it.

[Sidenote 1: _ibid. c. 5._]

[Sidenote 2: _Cap. 1._]

[Sidenote 3: _Cap. 5._]

I have now cited such Authors both ancient and moderne, who have directly maintained the same opinion. I told you likewise in the proposition that it might probably be deduced from the tenent of others: such were _Aristarchus_, _Philolaus_ and _Copernicus_, with many other later writers who assented to their hypothesis, so _Ioach. Rlelicus_, _David Origanus_, _Lansbergius_, _Guil. Gilbert_, and (if I may believe _Campanella_[1]) _Innumeri alii Angli & Galli_. Very many others both English and French, all who affirmed our Earth to be one of the Planets, and the Sunne to bee the Centre of all, about which the heavenly bodies did move, and how horrid soever this may seeme at the first, yet is it likely enough to be true, nor is there any maxime or observation in Opticks (saith _Pena_) that can disprove it.

[Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galilaeo._]

Now if our earth were one of the Planets (as it is according to them) then why may not another of the Planets be an earth?

Thus have I shewed you the truth of this proposition: Before I proceede farther, 'tis requisite that I informe the Reader, what method I shall follow in the proving of this chiefe assertion, that there is a World in the Moone.

The order by which I shall bee guided will be that which _Aristotle_[1] uses in his booke _De mundo_ (if that booke were his.)

[Sidenote 1: _a 1º. cap. ad 10m._]

First, +peri ton en aute+ of those chiefe parts which are in it; not the elementary and aethereall (as he doth there) since this doth not belong to the elementary controversie, but of the Sea and Land, &c. Secondly, +peri auten pathon+, of those things which are extrinsecall to it, as the seasons, meteors and inhabitants.

Proposition 7.

_That those spots and brighter parts which by our sight may be
distinguished in the Moone, doe shew the difference betwixt the Sea
and Land in that other World._

For the cleare proofe of this proposition, I shall first reckon up and refute the opinions of others concerning the matter and forme of those spots, and then shew the greater probability of this present assertion, and how agreeable it is to that truth, which is most commonly received; as for the opinions of other concerning these, they have beene very many, I will only reckon up those which are common and remarkeable.

Some there are that thinke those spots doe not arise from any deformity of the parts, but a deceit of the eye, which cannot at such a distance discerne an equall light in that planet, but these do but onely say it, and shew not any reason for the proofe of their opinion: Others think[1] that there be some bodies betwixt the Sunne and Moone, which keeping off the lights in some parts, doe by their shadow produce these spots which wee there discerne.

[Sidenote 1: So _Bede_ in _d. de Mund. constit._]

Others would have them to be the figure of the mountaines here below represented there as in a looking-glasse. But none of those fancies can bee true, because the spots are stil the same, & not varied according to the difference of places, and besides, _Cardan_ thinks it is impossible that any image should be conveyed so farre as there to be represented unto us at such a distance,[1] but tis commonly related of _Pythagoras_, that he by writing, what he pleased in a glasse, by the reflexio of the same species, would make those letters to appeare in the circle of the Moone, where they should be legible by any other, who might at that time be some miles distant from him.[2]* _Agrippa_ affirmes this to be possible, and the way of performing it not unknowne to himselfe, with some others in his time. It may be that our Bishop did by the like meanes performe those strange conclusions which hee professes in his _Nuncius inanimatus_, where hee pretends that hee can informe his friends of what he pleases, though they be an hundred miles distant, _forte etiam, vel milliare millesimum_, they are his owne words, and, perhaps, a thousand, and all this in a minutes space, or little more, quicker than the Sunne can move.

[Sidenote 1: _De subtil. lib. 3._]

[Sidenote 2*: _Occulta ad Philos. l. 1. cap. 6._]

Now, what conveyance there should be for so speedy a passage, I cannot conceive, unlesse it be carried with the light, then which wee know not any thing quicker; but of this onely by the way; however, whether those images can be represented so or not, yet certaine it is, those spots are not such representations. Some thinke that when God had at first created too much earth to make a perfect globe, not knowing well where to bestow the rest, he placed it in the Moone, which ever since hath so darkened it in some parts, but the impiety of this is sufficient confutation, since it so much detracts from the divine power and wisedome.

The *[1]Stoicks held that planet to be mixed of fire and aire, and in their opinion, the variety of its composition, caused her spots: _Anaxagoras_ thought all the starres to be of an earthly nature, mixed with some fire, and as for the Sunne, hee affirmed it to be nothing else but a fiery stone; for which later opinion, the _Athenians_ sentenc'd him to death;[2] those zealous Idolaters counting it a great blasphemy, to make their God a stone, whereas not withstanding, they were so senslesse in their adoration of Idolls, as to make a stone their God, this _Anaxagoras_ affirmed the Moone to be more terrestriall then the other, but of a greater purity then any thing here below, and the spots hee thought were nothing else, but some cloudy parts, intermingled with the light which belonged to that Planet, but I have above destroyed the supposition on which this fancy is grounded: _Pliny_[3] thinkes they arise from some drossie stuffe, mixed with that moysture which the Moone attracts unto her selfe, but hee was of their opinion, who thought the starres were nourished by some earthly vapours, which you may commonly see refuted in the _Commentators_ on the bookes, _de Coelo_.

[Sidenote 1*: _Plut. de placit. phil. l. 2. c. 25._]

[Sidenote 2: _Iosephus l. 2. con. App._
_August. de civit. Dei. l. 18. c. 41._]

[Sidenote 3: _Nat. Hist. lib. 2. c. 9._]

_Vitellio_ and _Reinoldus_[1] affirme the spots to be the thicker parts of the Moone, into which the Sunne cannot infuse much light, and this (say they) is the reason, why in the Sunnes eclipses, the spots and brighter parts are still in some measure distinguished, because the Sunne beames are not able so well to penetrate through those thicker, as they may through the thinner parts of the Planet. Of this opinion also was _Caesar la Galla_, whose words are these,[2]

"The Moone doth there appeare clearest, where shee is transpicuous,
not onely through the superficies, but the substance also, and there
she seemes spotted, where her body is most opacous."

The ground of this his assertion was, because hee thought the Moone did receive and bestow her light by illumination onely, and not at all by reflexion, but this, together with the supposed penetration of the Sunne beames, and the perspicuity of the Moones body I have above answered and refuted.

[Sidenote 1: _Opt. lib. 9._
_Comment. in Purb. pag. 164._]

[Sidenote 2: _Ex qua parte luna est transpicua non totum secundum
superficiem, sed etiam secundum substantiam, eatenus clara, ex qua
autem parte opaca est, eatenus obscura videtur._ _De Phaenom.
cap. 11._]

The more common and generall opinion[1] is, that the spots are the thinner parts of the Moone, which are lesse able to reflect the beames that they receive from the Sunne, and this is most agreeable to reason, for if the starres are therefore brightest, because they are thicker and more solid then their orbes, then it will follow, that those parts of the Moone which have lesse light, have also lesse thickenesse. It was the providence of nature (say some) that so contrived that planet to have these spots within it, for since that is neerest to those lower bodies which are so full of deformity, 'tis requisite that it should in some measure agree with them, and as in this inferiour world the higher bodies are the most compleat, so also in the heavens perfection is ascended unto by degrees, and the Moone being the lowest, must be the least pure, and therefore _Philo_ the Jew[2] interpreting _Iacobs_ dreame concerning the ladder, doth in an allegory shew, how that in the fabricke of the world, all things grow perfecter as they grow higher, and this is the reason (saith hee) why the Moone doth not consist of any pure simple matter, but is mixed with aire, which shewes so darkely within her body.

[Sidenote 1: _Albert. mag. de coaevis. Q. 4. Art. 21._
_Colleg. Con._]

[Sidenote 2: _De Somniis._]

But this cannot be a sufficient reason, for though it were true that nature did frame every thing perfecter as it was higher, yet is it as true, that nature frames every thing fully perfect for that office to which shee intends it. Now, had she intended the Moone meerly to reflect the Sunne beames and give light, the spots then had not so much argued her providence, as her unskilfulnesse and imperfection,[1] as if in the haste of her worke shee could not tell how to make that body exactly fit, for that office to which she appointed it.

[Sidenote 1: _Scalig. exercit. 62._]

Tis likely then that she had some other end which moved her to produce this variety, and this in all probability was her intent to make it a fit body for habitation with the same conveniencies of sea and land, as this inferiour world doth partake of. For since the Moone is such a vast, such a solid and opacous body like our earth (as was above proved) why may it not be probable, that those thinner and thicker parts appearing in her, doe shew the difference betwixt the sea and land in that other world; and _Galilaeus_ doubts not, but that if our earth were visible at the same distance, there would be the like appearance of it.

As for the forme of those spots, some of the vulgar thinke they represent a man, and the Poets guesse 'tis the boy _Endimion_, whose company shee loves so well, that shee carries him with her, others will have it onely to be the face of a man as the Moone is usually pictured, but _Albertus_ thinkes rather, that it represents a Lyon with his taile towards the East, and his head the West, and [1]*some others have thought it to be very much like a Fox, & certainly 'tis as much like a Lyon as that in the _Zodiake_, or as _Vrsa major_ is like a Beare.

[Sidenote 1*: Eusebius Nioremb. _Hist. Nat. lib. 8. c. 15._]

I should guesse that it represents one of these as well as another, and any thing else as well as any of these, since 'tis but a strong imagination, which fancies such images as schoole-boyes usually doe in the markes of a wall, whereas there is not any such similitude in the spots themselves, which rather like our Sea, in respect of the land, appeares under a rugged and confused figure, and doth not represent any distinct image, so that both in respect of the matter and the forme it may be probable enough, that those spots and brighter parts may shew the distinction betwixt the Sea and Land in that other world.

Proposition 8.

_The spots represent the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land._

When I first compared the nature of our earth and water with those appearances in the Moone; I concluded contrary to the proposition, that the brighter parts represented the water, and the spots the land; of this opinion likewise was _Keplar_ at the first; but my second thoughts, and the reading of others,[1] have now convinced me (as after he was) of the truth of that Proposition which I have now set downe. But before I come to the confirmation of it, I shall mention those scruples which at first made mee doubt of the truth of this opinion.

[Sidenote 1: _Opt. Astro. c. 6. num. 9._
_Dissert. cum nuncio Gal._]

1. It may be objected, 'tis probable, if there be any such sea and land as ours, that it bears some proportion and similitude with ours: but now this Proposition takes away all likenesse betwixt them, for whereas the superficies of our earth is but the third part of the whole surface in the globe, two parts being overspread with the water (as _Scaliger_[1] observes) yet here according to this opinion, the Sea should be lesse then the Land, since there is not so much of the bespotted, as ther is of the enlightened parts, wherefore 'tis probable, that either there is no such thing at all, or else that the brighter parts are the Sea.

[Sidenote 1: _Exercit. 38._]

2. The water, by reason of the smoothnesse of its superficies, seemes better able to reflect the Sun beames then the earth, which in most places is so full of ruggednesse of grasse and trees, and such like impediments of reflection, and besides, comon experience shewes, that the water shines with a greater and more glorious brightnesse then the earth, therefore it should seeme that the spots are the earth, and the brighter parts the water.

But to the first it may be answered.

1. There is no great probability in this consequence, that because 'tis so with us, therefore it must be so with the parts of the Moone, for since there is such a difference betwixt them in divers other respects, they may not, perhaps, agree in this.

2. That assertion of _Scaliger_ is not by all granted for a truth. _Fromondus_[1] with others, thinke, that the superficies of the Sea and Land in so much of the world as is already discovered, is equall, and of the same extension.

[Sidenote 1: _De Meteoris l. 5. c. 1. Art. 1._]

3. The Orbe of thicke and vaporous aire which encompasses the Moone, makes the brighter parts of that Planet appeare bigger then in themselves they are; as I shall shew afterwards.

To the second it may be answered, that though the water be of a smooth superficies, and so may seeme most fit to reverberate the light, yet because 'tis of a perspicuous nature, therefore the beames must sinke into it, and cannot so strongly and clearely be reflected. _Sicut in speculo ubi plumbum abrasum fuerit_, (saith _Cardan_) as in Looking-glasses where part of the lead is raized off, and nothing left behind to reverberate the image, the species must there passe through and not backe againe; so it is where the beames penetrate and sinke into the substance of the body, there cannot be such an immediate and strong reflection as when they are beate backe from the superficies, and therefore the Sunne causes a greater heate by farre upon the Land then upon the water. Now as for that experiment, where 'tis said, that the waters have a greater brightness then the Land: I answer, 'tis true onely there where they represent the image of the Sunne or some bright cloud, and not in other places, as is very plaine by common observation.

So that notwithstanding those doubts, yet this Proposition may remaine true, that the spots may be the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land. Of this opinion was _Plutarch_: unto him assented _Keplar_ and _Galilaeus_, whose words are these,

_Si quis veterum Pythagoraeorum sententiam excuscitare velit, lunam
scilicet esse quasi tellurem alteram, ejus pars lucidior terrenam
superficiem, obscurior vero aqueam magis congrue repraesentet. Mihi
autem dubium fuit numquam terrestris globi a longe conspecti,
atque a radiis solaribus perfusi, terream superficiem clariorem,
obscuriorem vero aqueam sese in conspectum daturam._[1]

"If any man have a minde to renew the opinion of the _Pythagoreans_,
that the Moone is another earth, then her brighter parts may fitly
represent the earths superficies, and the darker part the water:
and for my part, I never doubted but that our earthly globe being
shined upon by the Sunne, and beheld at a great distance, the Land
would appeare brightest and the Sea more obscurely."

[Sidenote 1: _De facie lun._
_Dissertatio._
_Nunc. Syd._]

The reasons may be.

1. That which I urged about the foregoing Chapter, because the water is the thinner part, and therefore must give the lesse light.